Jump to content

Its Queen Anne then


Solent Richard
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've had to stop taking bets on my fb group pages as it would appear that someone has let the cat is out of the bag... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fincantieri?fbclid=IwAR1QacWVVuyFisGPhVnivNFxHMs-7qiyAppNI7PkwA35CZZ4wx3dFrvfCT0

 

1115211989_QueenAnne.thumb.jpg.40caaa6f4c36247a5683250063ceff1b.jpg

 

 

Or is that one amazing spoof?

Edited by Solent Richard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just, whomever puts the super reliable and never incorrect information on Wikipedia has just gone along with the popular narrative and put it on there? 🤷‍♂️

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, T5LHR said:

Or just, whomever puts the super reliable and never incorrect information on Wikipedia has just gone along with the popular narrative and put it on there? 🤷‍♂️

My money is on this explanation, Social media is full of people confidently telling others that the ship will be called Queen Anne with nothing to back up the assertion.

Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source.

I'm waiting for an official announcement from Cunard.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Host Hattie said:

My money is on this explanation, Social media is full of people confidently telling others that the ship will be called Queen Anne with nothing to back up the assertion.

Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source.

I'm waiting for an official announcement from Cunard.

I have no problem with that.

 

Patience has always been one of my strongest virtues.

 

😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The name Queen Anne has been on the following website for months, if not a year. (page 14)

http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Cruise-Ships-on-Order.pdf

 

On the Trademarks website the name was opposed a while ago

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003422742

 

A while ago someone posted on here to think more in the line of Countess, rather than Queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I think this list may not be reliable. For example, it lists the next Holland America ship as "Nieuw Ryndam," but the ship is simply going to be named "Ryndam" (without the "Nieuw"). At this point, the name listed for the new Cunard ship probably is a guess. 

 

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick check of Cunard's social media sites show no official announcements of anything for the new ship since steel cutting began last October.  As Ray66 pointed out the AMEM group has long listed this ship as "Queen Anne" but nothing official has come from Cunard. 

 

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody at any time.  Some editors place an alert on articles that are prone to vandalism or good-faith rumor and speculation.  When somebody makes a change like that they're supposed to reference it to a reliable news or industry source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carnival have registered Queen Anne, Queen Isabella, Aquitania, Mauretania, Caronia, Aurelia, Sirona, and King James as trademarks in the last few months, most of which were noted recently in another thread.

 

The schedule of intellectual property mortgaged at the beginning of April by Carnival makes interesting reading, even if terribly lengthy and repetitive because they have a lot of trade marks each registered in a lot of countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kentchris said:

Carnival have registered Queen Anne, Queen Isabella, Aquitania, Mauretania, Caronia, Aurelia, Sirona, and King James as trademarks in the last few months, most of which were noted recently in another thread.

 

The schedule of intellectual property mortgaged at the beginning of April by Carnival makes interesting reading, even if terribly lengthy and repetitive because they have a lot of trade marks each registered in a lot of countries. 

 

Hi,

 

Until recently, I always liked Caronia for a Cunard ship name. It always brings the luxurious "Green Goddess" to mind. However, I seriously doubt that this name will be used again due to its similarity to the name of the virus.

 

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was ages ago that a poster had discovered that the Name Queen Anne had been registered by Cunard for their 4th Ship,  and informed us on this forum.   Everyone more or less agreed that it would not be name used at the Christening ceremony.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Queen Anne has been the real safe bet throughout, if it does turn out to be a red herring with this 'countess' comment, once again the only name I can envisage in that area would be MS Duchess of Cambridge. She's very popular, it would be closer to the OG Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth being named after contemporary rather than historical figures, and Carnival have been a little experimental with names recently - Mardi Gras (calling back to their OG ship) rather than Carnival xxxx for the Carnival new build, and Iona, a never before used name for P&O. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Queen Anne, King James, Aquitania and Mauretania are all registered with Cunard for the purpose of a fourth ship. There's a fifth name but I cannot recall it. 

 

If this is to be one of two new ships, then the sister names of Aquitania and Mauretania would be appropriate. 

 

I somewhat feel that three queens has a grander grander sound than four queens. I rather hope they return to their origins with the namining. 

 

When boarding the QM2, I'd like to be able to say 'it doesn't look any bigger than the Mauretania.' 🙂

Edited by Austcruiser84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Austcruiser84 said:

Queen Anne, King James, Aquitania and Mauretania are all registered with Cunard for the purpose of a fourth ship. There's a fifth name but I cannot recall it. 

 

If this is to be one of two new ships, then the sister names of Aquitania and Mauretania would be appropriate. 

 

I somewhat feel that three queens has a grander grander sound than four queens. I rather hope they return to their origins with the namining. 

 

When boarding the QM2, I'd like to be able to say 'it doesn't look any bigger than the Mauretania.' 🙂

 

 

you can blasé about some things Auscruiser but not the Titanic, its over 100 feet longer than the Mauritania  and far more luxurious

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pegasus2 said:

It would be fantasic to have the the Olympic and Britanic names back. Or if they are a bit hesitant with Britanic, then at least Olympic.

It’s a shame really that White Star didn’t survive as anything more than a little used sub brand of Cunard - I would still argue they were the more innovative company of the two, and had the better ships right through the Edwardian period, and up to the forced merger. The ‘big four’, Olympic class, and cancelled Oceanic III were all more advanced than Cunard’s contemporaries, and did more to push on board standards and facilities forward. I would even venture to say QE2 was built more in the White Star spirit than Cunard’s conservative-to-a-fault method of business! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, roscoe39 said:

 

 

you can blasé about some things Auscruiser but not the Titanic, its over 100 feet longer than the Mauritania  and far more luxurious

 

Im not sure he was.

 

Anyway, you must admit the Mauritania was superior in terms of speed, being a longtime Blue Riband holder, and, um, in number of completed crossings. I know which I should have preferred to travel on.😀

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exlondoner said:

 

Im not sure he was.

 

Anyway, you must admit the Mauritania was superior in terms of speed, being a longtime Blue Riband holder, and, um, in number of completed crossings. I know which I should have preferred to travel on.😀

It was a quote from the film 😉

 

In terms of which would be preferable to travel on... I think assuming a sailing ending in a freak accident involving a fatal encounter with an iceberg, you'd not be any better off on the ship with an even worse passenger:lifeboat ratio as built, and whose near identical twin sank in just 18 minutes, listing so badly that half the lifeboats couldn't be lowered! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SilverHengroen said:

It was a quote from the film 😉

 

In terms of which would be preferable to travel on... I think assuming a sailing ending in a freak accident involving a fatal encounter with an iceberg, you'd not be any better off on the ship with an even worse passenger:lifeboat ratio as built, and whose near identical twin sank in just 18 minutes, listing so badly that half the lifeboats couldn't be lowered! 

 

Ah. I'm happy to say I've never seen the film, though I have seen A Night to Remember. In fact, ignoring fatal accidents, I d still prefer the Mauritania, as the voyage, no doubt uncomfortable, would be over more quickly. In both the cases where the ships sank, it would have been good for the captains (and perhaps their employers) to have taken note of warnings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SilverHengroen said:

It’s a shame really that White Star didn’t survive as anything more than a little used sub brand of Cunard - I would still argue they were the more innovative company of the two, and had the better ships right through the Edwardian period, and up to the forced merger. The ‘big four’, Olympic class, and cancelled Oceanic III were all more advanced than Cunard’s contemporaries, and did more to push on board standards and facilities forward. I would even venture to say QE2 was built more in the White Star spirit than Cunard’s conservative-to-a-fault method of business! 

 

White Star was not a little used sub brand of Cunard.  White Star Line and Cunard Line merged in 1934 and operated as Cunard-White Star until in 1947 Cunard acquired the 38% of Cunard White Star it didn't already own and in 1949 bought out the entire company, changing back then to operate as the Cunard Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bourdon said:

 

White Star was not a little used sub brand of Cunard.  White Star Line and Cunard Line merged in 1934 and operated as Cunard-White Star until in 1947 Cunard acquired the 38% of Cunard White Star it didn't already own and in 1949 bought out the entire company, changing back then to operate as the Cunard Line.

White star is a little-used sub brand of Cunard. It's now reduced to a pin badge worn by staff signifying their 'white star service'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SilverHengroen said:

White star is a little-used sub brand of Cunard. It's now reduced to a pin badge worn by staff signifying their 'white star service'. 

 

White start hasn't existed since 1934! It isn't a sub-brand.  Suggest you read some of Chris Frame's history of Cunard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bourdon said:

 

White start hasn't existed since 1934! It isn't a sub-brand.  Suggest you read some of Chris Frame's history of Cunard.

Then what is it? Honestly I fail to see exactly what is so difficult to understand here. After Cunard assumed complete control of CWS, they inherited the trademark to the White Star 'brand'. That is what they still use today as a tiny part of their marketing material, ergo it's become a sub-brand within Cunard. 🙄

Edited by SilverHengroen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, roscoe39 said:

 

 

you can blasé about some things Auscruiser but not the Titanic, its over 100 feet longer than the Mauritania  and far more luxurious


I travel like Cal and Rose so it seemed appropriate 😆 Too much luggage sometimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exlondoner said:

 

Ah. I'm happy to say I've never seen the film, though I have seen A Night to Remember. In fact, ignoring fatal accidents, I d still prefer the Mauritania, as the voyage, no doubt uncomfortable, would be over more quickly. In both the cases where the ships sank, it would have been good for the captains (and perhaps their employers) to have taken note of warnings.


The Cunard super liners were incredibly unstable at high speeds. I think I would have much preferred the White Star giants (from a purely shipwise perspective). Slightly slower, but stable, far more luxurious and greater amenities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: PONANT Cruises & Expeditions
      • Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Q&A with American Queen Voyages
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...